FHe  secoRD  rr?ar? 


j.n.sHiRLeY 


BV250  .S54  1919 
Shirley,  J.  A. 
The  second  man 


L6i6r 
5hi 


THE  SECOND  MAN 


^■i.  OF  PilliJ??> 


BY 


J.  A.  SHIRLEY,  M.A.,  B.D. 


^., 


-I  :>\Mff& 


BOSTON 

RICHARD  G.  BADGER 

THE   GORHAM    PRESS 


COPYEIGHT,  I919,  BY  RiCHARD   G.  BADGER 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Made  in  the  United  States  of  America 


The  Gorham  Press,  Boston,  U.  S.  A 


TO  THE  WARDENS 

as  representatives  of  the  two  congregations 

with  whom  i  have  labored  in 

christian  service 

St.  Alban's  Church,  Oak  Lane,  Manitoba 

(1913-1916) 

R.  A.  Montgomery  E.  E.  Orr 

N.  Banister         J.  L.  Clarke 

St.  Stephen's  Church,  East  Kildonan  Road,  Winnipeg 

(1916,  TO  present  date) 

D.  E.  Williams  A.  Brazier 

W.  J.  Major 


CONTENTS 

I  PAGE 

The  First  Adam 7 

II 

The  Incarnation 25 

III 

The  Second  Man 35 

IV 

The  Sacrifice 44 

V 

The  Communion  of  the  Saints      ...       53 


THE  SECOND  MAN 


THE  SECOND   MAN 


THE   FIRST  ADAM 

Gen.   I.   I — In  the  beginning  God 

THINKING  men  in  all  ages  and  in  all  lands 
have  been  greatly  puzzled  about  the  origin 
of  things.  Even  among  the  most  savage  tribes  the 
teachers  hold  some  theory  of  the  creation  of  the 
universe.  How  did  it  come  into  being?  Did  the 
earth  and  the  heavens  always  exist  in  their  present 
form?  Did  they  develop  out  of  something  else,  and, 
if  so,  from  whence  did  that  something  else  arise? 
Whence  came  man? 

There  are  some  who  say  that  for  man  to  try  to 
contemplate  the  infinite  or  to  inquire  into  the  origin 
of  things  is  a  vain  and  useless  task,  that  our  time 
might  be  better  occupied  in  dealing  with  those  ac- 
tualities of  life  which  more  closely  concern  our 
present  existence.  But  surely  anything  that  will 
make  us  think  more  deeply  about  God  and  about 
the  great  eternal  principles  of  life  cannot  be  con* 
sidered  useless. 


8  The  Second  Man 

It  is  extremely  interesting  and  profitable  to  study 
that  period  of  Greek  thought  just  preceding  the 
dawn  of  Christianity  to  see  to  what  high  attain- 
ments the  human  mind  could  go,  even  at  that  time, 
in  working  out  a  theory  of  creation,  and  that  among 
a  people  who  had  never  seen  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
But  there  is  so  much  to  deal  with  in  regard  to  mis- 
understandings between  science  and  religion  in  rela- 
tion to  creation,  in  those  countries  which  profess 
to  be  Christian,  that  time  will  not  permit  our  dealing 
with  pre-christian  ideas. 

We  will  turn  at  once  to  the  struggle  between 
science  and  religion  as  it  concerns  us  in  Christian 
lands.  Throughout  those  countries  that  profess  to 
believe  in  the  revelation  of  Holy  Scriptures  as  the 
word  of  God  to  man  there  has  been  waged  the  most 
bitter  warfare  between  science  and  religion.  And 
the  responsibility  for  that  warfare  must  rest  upon 
the  narrow-mindedness  of  those  who  have  assumed 
to  be  the  defenders  of  religion  rather  than  upon 
the  men  of  science. 

This  warfare  may  be  divided  into  three  stages. 
The  first  is  that  in  which  religion  and  science  stand 
as  open  enemies.  Religion  was  suspicious  of  the 
intentions  of  science,  and  every  move  which  science 
made  was  closely  and  critically  watched.  New  dis- 
coveries made  by  science  were  almost  instantly  con- 


The  First  Adam 


demned  as  contrary  to  revealed  religion.  And  as 
a  result  scientists  grew  impatient  and  made  some 
merciless  counter-attacks,  pointing  out  things  in 
Scripture  which  appeared  to  them  absurd,  and  when 
they  asked  the  defenders  of  religion  to  explain 
them  they  could  not  do  so;  their  only  answer  was, 
that  it  had  been  so  revealed  to  us  and  we  must 
accept  it  as  given.  Such  an  answer  was  little  use 
to  science,  for  it  has  always  been  one  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  science  to  accept  nothing  with- 
out an  explanation. 

The  next  stage  in  the  warfare  between  science 
and  religion  was  a  stage  of  compromise.  They  vir- 
tually said  to  one  another,  that  while  there  were 
certain  fundamental  differences  on  which  they  could 
not  hope  to  agree,  yet  as  for  minor  differences,  they 
would  submerge  them  as  far  as  possible. 

The  third  stage  is  the  one  through  which  we  are 
passing  now,  the  stage  of  mutual  understanding. 
Religion  is  saying  to  science,  **I  see  that  I  have  been 
attacking  you  unjustly;  I  have  been  interpreting 
my  own  Scriptures  too  narrowly;  I  see  now  that 
many  of  the  things  I  have  been  condemning  in 
science  as  contrary  to  Scripture  do  not  conflict  at 
all,  but  in  reality  they  are  the  complement  of  Scrip- 
ture and  help  us  to  understand  it."  And  science 
is  now  saying  to  religion,  "I  see  now  that  I  was 


10  The  Second  Man 

wrong  in  many  of  the  attacks  that  I  made  upon 
Scripture.  Certain  things  revealed  in  Scripture 
seemed  absurd,  impossible.  You  yourself  had  no  ex- 
planation to  offer,  but  by  scientific  research  many 
explanations  have  been  found  and  things  once  con- 
demned as  impossible  are  now  conceded  to  be  pos- 
sible." Religion  and  science  stand  closer  together 
and  understand  each  other  better  to-day  than  they 
have  ever  done  before. 

Between  true  religion  and  true  science  there 
should  be  no  struggle  now,  and  there  never  should 
have  been  any  struggle  in  the  past.  They  are  full 
brothers,  both  of  them  inspired  gifts  of  God  to 
man,  for  the  God  of  revelation  is  also  the  God 
of  nature,  and  between  the  truths  which  God  Him- 
self reveals  to  man,  whether  those  truths  are  re- 
vealed by  inspiration  as  through  the  prophets,  or 
whether  they  are  revealed  by  nature  to  the  students 
of  nature,  between  the  truths  which  God  Himself 
reveals  to  man  there  can  be  no  conflict.  They 
are  full  brothers.  The  surname  of  both  of  them 
is  Religion,  the  Christian  name  of  the  one  is  Re- 
vealed and  the  Christian  name  of  the  other  is 
Natural.  Yet  how  frequently  it  has  happened  in 
human  experience  that  brothers  have  quarreled  be- 
cause of  misunderstanding — so  too  the  world  has 
seen  the  most  pitiable  quarrels  between  these  two 


The  First  Adam  ii 

brothers,  Revealed  Religion  and  Natural  Religion. 

We  shall  consider  now  two  or  three  typical  at- 
tacks which  religion  has  made  upon  science,  and 
show,  if  we  can,  that  the  attacks  have  been  the 
result  of  hasty  and  premature  decisions. 

When  Copernicus,  the  father  of  modern  astron- 
omy, came  forth  with  his  new  ideas  that  the  world 
was  round  and  that  the  sun  was  the  centre  of 
our  system,  religion  held  up  its  hands  in  horror  at 
such  heresy.  God  had  made  the  world  and  religion 
felt  called  upon  to  come  to  God's  defence.  The 
theories  of  Copernicus  were  condemned  by  a  papal 
decree,  and  for  two  hundred  years  his  views  were 
not  allowed  to  spread.  But  the  Copernican  theory 
of  the  world  has  come  to  stay,  no  matter  what 
religion  has  to  say,  not  exactly  as  Copernicus  him- 
self propounded  it,  it  has  been  revised  and  improved 
since  then;  but  the  fundamental  principles  of  his 
discovery  have  been  demonstrated  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, and  the  defenders  of  religion  have  found  out 
that  so  far  from  conflicting  with  Scripture,  the 
Copernican  theory  of  the  universe  really  comple- 
ments and  helps  to  explain  the  Book  of  Genesis. 

It  was  the  same  with  Newton's  discovery  of  the 
law  of  gravitation.  Religion  was  horrified  at  the 
thought  of  men  saying  that  the  universe  was  held 
in  place  by  physical  laws  of  gravitation.    God  made 


12  The  Second  Man 

the  world  and  He  placed  the  stars  and  the  sun  and 
the  earth  in  their  respective  places  and  held  them 
there.  What  sacrilege  for  men  to  say  that  they 
had  discovered  physical  force  to  be  holding  the 
universe  in  place !  But  Newton's  law  of  gravitation, 
not  exactly  as  he  discovered  it,  but  modified  and 
perfected,  has  come  to  stay.  The  fundamental 
principles  which  he  discovered  have  been  demon- 
strated beyond  all  question,  and  the  defenders  of 
religion  have  had  to  make  room  for  it  in  their 
beliefs,  and  instead  of  denying  and  conflicting  with 
Scripture  they  have  found  again  that  the  law  of 
gravitation  really  complements  and  helps  to  explain. 

Once  again  when  Herschel  brought  forth  his 
nebular  theory  of  the  universe,  that  the  earth  to- 
gether with  other  heavenly  bodies  was  once  in  a 
molten  state,  and  was  very  slowly  and  gradually 
transformed  into  earth,  religion  again  declared  this 
to  be  an  enormous  heresy,  for  the  Book  of  Genesis 
had  declared  the  world  to  be  made  in  six  days,  a 
single  week.  But  a  modified  form  of  Herschel's 
theory  has  been  demonstrated,  neither  does  it  come 
into  conflict  with  Scripture. 

But  the  great  storm  centre  of  controversy  centred 
on  the  Darwinian  theory  of  evolution,  particularly 
the  evolution  of  man  from  the  lower  orders  of 
creation.     Religion   could  scarcely  find   words  to 


The  First  Adam  13 

express  her  consternation  and  disgust.  But  a  modi- 
fied form  of  Darwin's  theory  of  evolution  has  been 
demonstrated,  and  to-day  it  would  be  hard  to  find 
a  professor  of  science  in  any  accredited  university 
who  could  deny  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
theory  of  evolution  and  retain  his  position.  And 
again  religion  is  finding  that  evolution,  as  applied 
to  man,  does  not  conflict  with  Scripture,  but  rather 
aids  and  explains  it.  These  latter  statements  are 
rather  sweeping  in  extent  and  will  require  further 
explanations ;  we  will  return  to  them  in  due  time. 

We  have  previously  stated  that  when  religion 
challenged  the  discoveries  that  science  had  made, 
science  turned  round  in  the  spirit  of  defiance  and 
said  that  Scripture  contained  things  that  were 
scientifically  and  historically  inaccurate.  We  shall 
pause  here  long  enough  to  mention  two  or  three 
typical  attacks  made  by  science  upon  religion.  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  in  the  account  of  creation, 
on  the  very  first  day  God  said,  ''Let  there  be  light," 
and  there  was  light;  while  the  command  that  the 
sun  and  the  moon  and  the  stars  be  called  into  exist- 
ence was  not  given  until  the  fourth  day,  and  science 
said  that  it  was  absurd  to  say  that  there  could  be 
light  before  the  heavenly  bodies  that  give  light 
were  created. 

Again  science  took  hold  of  some  of  the  historical 


14  The  Second  Man 

books  of  Scripture,  especially  those  parts  relating 
to  wars  against  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  and 
science  said  that  some  of  these  accounts  were  very 
doubtful.  They  produced  histories  of  Babylon  and 
Assyria  wherein  many  of  the  accounts  differed,  and 
where  many  of  the  events  narrated  in  Scripture  were 
not  to  be  found.  Therefore  science  was  not  pre- 
pared to  accept  a  great  many  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

Once  again  science  challenged  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  miracu- 
lous birth  of  Christ,  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  a  child  born  of  only  one  natural  parent. 
Science  said  the  thing  was  impossible. 

But  just  as  religion  has  had  to  back  down  in  its 
attack  on  science,  so  has  science  had  to  back  down 
in  many  of  its  attacks  on  religion. 

Just  recently  scientific  discoveries  have  revealed 
the  marvels  of  radium,  a  substance  which  in  the 
darkest  underground  recesses  shines  forth  and  gives 
light  of  itself,  and  science  has  had  to  acknowledge 
that  the  order  of  events  as  narrated  in  Genesis  is 
not  scientifically  impossible. 

Recent  research  among  the  ruins  of  ancient  cities 
have  brought  to  light  inscriptions  describing  the  very 
events  of  history  concerning  which  science  had 
expressed  its  doubts  because  they  had  been  recorded 


The  First  Adam  15 


in  no  other  language  save  Hebrew.  Science  has  had 
to  acknowledge  the  injustice  of  its  attack. 

And  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
no  less  an  authority  on  science  than  Lord  Kelvin 
has  recently  stated  that  while  the  phenomenon  of 
a  virgin  birth  is  a  most  unlikely  occurrence,  and 
one  that  will  probably  never  happen  again,  yet  it 
is  not  absolutely  impossible  according  to  the  laws 
of  science,  the  very  verdict  that  Scripture  would 
ask. 

Now  for  that  phase  of  the  conflict  between  reli- 
gion and  science  through  which  we  have  been  pass- 
ing for  the  last  half  century,  namely,  religion  versus 
geology  and  evolution!  Let  us  endeavor  to  isolate 
one  single  aspect  of  the  conflict  between  religion 
and  geology.  Geology  looks  at  rocks  and  says  that 
by  a  slow  process  of  formation  through  inestimable 
ages,  these  rocks  have  been  formed,  layer  upon 
layer;  moreover  in  the  lower  layer  there  are  found 
imprints  of  species  of  animal  and  plant  life  and 
of  fish  that  have  died  and  been  buried  in  the  forma- 
tion of  these  rocks,  species  that  do  not  exist  upon 
the  earth  at  the  present  time;  while  in  the  layers 
of  rocks  over  this  there  are  other  species  of  animal 
and  plant  life  that  are  clearly  of  a  higher  order 
of  development  though  they  too  have  vanished 
from  the  earth. 


1 6  The  Second  Man 

And  geology  draws  the  inference  that  the  forma- 
tion of  the  earth  was  very,  very  slow,  requiring  ages 
upon  ages  of  time;  moreover,  geology  draws  this 
other  inference  that  there  w^as  a  gradual  progress 
upward  in  animal  and  plant  life  for  ages  upon  ages 
before  man  appeared  upon  the  earth  at  all. 

But  religion  said — it  cannot  be.  The  world  was 
created  in  six  days,  not  in  long  periods  of  time, 
moreover,  the  animals  and  plants  of  every  kind  were 
made  by  God  and  this  idea  of  a  new  and  higher 
kind  of  animal  developing  out  of  a  lower  animal 
is  false;  God  made  them  and  He  made  them  as 
they  are. 

Then  science  put  this  challenge  to  religion.  Here 
are  the  evidences  imbedded  in  the  rocks  that  great 
periods  of  time  were  required  for  the  development 
of  the  earth  and  of  animal  and  plant  life  thereon. 
Now  if  God  made  the  earth  in  a  week  why  did 
He  put  these  evidences  into  the  rocks  to  show  that 
long  periods  of  time  were  required?  But  religion 
had  no  satisfactory  answer  to  that  challenge.  There 
were  a  few,  but  no  one  could  take  them  seriously 
who  said  that  God  may  have  put  these  evidences 
into  the  rocks  to  lead  curious  and  inquisitive  men 
astray.  Such  an  explanation  is  dishonoring  to  God. 
Would  anything  tend  to  shake  man's  faith  in  God 
more  quickly  than  to  be  told  that  God  had  created 


The  First  Adam  17 

the  earth  in  such  a  way  as  to  deceive  and  to  mock 
him,  and  to  make  man's  intellect  the  intellect  of 
a  fool?  No,  you  cannot  make  men  believe  to-day 
that  the  earth  w^as  made  in  a  week.  The  evidences 
of  nature  placed  there  by  God  Himself  are  against 
it.  Neither  do  the  early  chapters  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  say  that  the  earth  was  made  in  a  week. 
The  six  days  of  creation  were  not  days  of  twenty- 
four  hours  each  as  some  have  vainly  thought;  there 
is  nothing  in  Genesis  to  indicate  that  each  day 
was  not  a  great  period  of  time.  Time  and  time 
again  in  Holy  Scripture  the  word  day  is  used  with 
this  meaning  of  a  great  period  of  time.  When 
Daniel  speaks  of  days  and  weeks  and  times  and  half 
times  we  do  not  take  it  to  mean  days  of  twenty- 
four  hours  each  or  weeks  of  seven  times  twenty- 
four  hours.  When  St.  Matthew  speaks  of  the 
great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord  he  does  not 
mean  a  twenty-four  hour  day.  And  Timothy  tells 
us  that  a  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years, 
and  a  thousand  years  are  as  a  day. 

Now  turn  to  Genesis  and  see  what  was  created 
on  the  fourth  day,  the  fourth  great  period  of  crea- 
tion. We  see  that  it  was  in  this  fourth  period 
that  the  sun  and  the  moon  and  the  stars  were  created 
and  the  purpose  of  their  creation  is  also  given,  they 
shall  be  for  signs  and  for  seasons  and  for  days  and 


The  Second  Man 


for  years.  Here,  then,  is  the  beginning  of  the 
division  of  time  as  we  know  it,  days,  seasons,  years 
measured  by  the  sun ;  this  division  of  time  only  began 
in  the  fourth  period  of  creation.  Therefore  the 
first  three  periods  of  creation,  the  first  three  days 
could  not  have  been  twenty-four  hour  days  meas- 
ured by  the  rising  and  the  setting  of  the  sun,  for 
the  sun  and  consequently  the  twenty-four  hour  day 
had  not  yet  come  into  being.  The  Book  of  Genesis 
itself  is  against  the  idea  that  the  world  was  created 
in  six  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each,  in  other 
words,  created  in  a  week.  We  get  these  miscon- 
ceived ideas  of  Scripture  because  we  do  read  Scrip- 
ture carefully  enough,  and  because  we  do  not  take 
time  to  reflect. 

When  geology  states  that  the  earth  required  ages 
upon  ages  for  its  formation  geology  is  not  therefore 
flying  in  the  face  of  Scripture  as  some  have  thought, 
but  is  in  reality  helping  us  to  understand  our 
Scriptures  better. 

Let  us  come  now  to  the  real  heart  of  our  subject, 
namely,  the  conflict  between  evolution  and  reli- 
gion. This  is  where  science  begins  to  touch  the 
origin  of  man  himself,  and  this  is  where  the  con- 
flict has  been  hottest. 

Evolution  says  that  all  animal  life,  including  man, 
has  slowly  developed  out  of  the  lower  orders  of 


The  First  Adam  19 

creation.  Evolution  does  not  deny  that  God  has 
created  life  in  the  first  place,  but  evolution  does 
stand  out  against  the  view  that  God  created  one 
kind  of  animal  away  down  at  the  bottom,  that 
He  created  another  a  little  higher  up,  another  still 
higher  up,  and  on  and  on  about  a  thousand  times 
until  eventually  He  created  man  above  them  all. 
Evolution  says  that  in  the  beginning  God  created 
life,  and  that  He  created  it  in  such  a  way  that  life 
itself  developed  into  these  succeeding  stages.  In 
other  words,  there  has  been  no  real  conflict  between 
science  and  religion  as  far  as  creation  is  concerned; 
both  agree  that  in  the  beginning  God  created,  but 
the  conflict  arose  when  they  attempted  to  explain 
the  method  of  creation. 

What  about  the  theory  of  evolution  ?  Has  it  been 
demonstrated  to  such  an  extent  that  we  should  be- 
lieve it?  Assuredly  it  has,  not  exactly  as  Darwin 
Ijimself  advanced  it,  but  in  a  modified  form  for  which 
we  are  chiefly  indebted  to  the  great  scientist  Lord 
Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  who  was  Darwin's  co- 
worker and  who  for  many  years  outlived  Darwin 
and  made  many  changes  in  the  theory  of  evolution. 

Among  the  scientists  of  all  ages  it  is  doubtful 
if  there  ever  has  arisen  a  greater  than  Darwin. 
Standing  at  first  alone,  with  practically  all  of 
earth's  intellect  arrayed  against  him,  he  stood  his 


20  The  Second  Man 

ground  and  gradually  one  by  one  he  brought  them 
over  to  his  side,  until  to-day  the  man  who  would 
take  his  stand  against  the  fundamental  principles 
for  which  the  name  of  Darwin  stands  is  the  man 
who  would  find  himself  deserted  by  the  world's 
intelligence. 

To  attempt  to  deal  with  the  works  of  Darwin  in 
an  address  of  this  kind  would  be  utterly  vain.  I 
shall  be  content  to  state  in  briefest  terms  the  broad 
principles  of  the  theory  of  evolution  as  it  is  held 
to-day  in  relation  to  the  origin  of  man,  which  as 
far  as  I  can  see  do  not  conflict  with  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis.  It  is  this.  The  physical  man, 
call  it  the  bodily  man,  the  animal  man,  call  it  what 
you  will,  the  physical  part  of  man  has  ascended 
from  the  lower  orders  of  creation.  Then  into  the 
physical  man  God  breathed  the  breath  of  life,  and 
man  became  a  living  soul.  Now  the  view  that 
most  of  us  were  taught  in  childhood  was  this,  that 
God  took  the  dust  of  the  earth  and  moulded  it 
into  the  form  of  a  human  being  in  the  same  way 
that  a  sculptor  would  mould  a  piece  of  clay  or 
bronze.  Then  into  that  human  form  that  He  had 
made  God  breathed  the  breath  of  life  and  man  began 
to  live,  and  if  we  pursue  this  view  to  its  con- 
clusion it  must  follow  that  by  that  miraculous 
breath  all  the  varied  parts  and  organs  of  the  human 


The  First  Adam  21 

body  were  formed,  the  heart,  the  veins,  and  the 
blood  sent  circulating  through  them. 

Evolution  differs  only  from  this  view  in  the 
method.  Evolution  says  that  God  made  man  out 
of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  but  that  long  ages  were 
required  to  accomplish  the  work  by  developing  the 
lower  orders  of  creation  upward,  ever  upward,  until 
the  animal  kingdom  was  brought  to  that  state  of 
perfection  where  it  resembled  the  human  body. 
Then  into  that  body,  not  a  dead  body,  but  a  living 
body  with  all  its  organisms  formed,  God  breathed 
the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul. 
This  second  view  seems  far  superior.  It  seems  to 
present  a  far  grander  view  both  of  man  and  God. 

First  think  of  God's  part.  It  is  one  thing  to  make 
a  clock  or  a  piece  of  machinery  which  from  the 
moment  it  is  made  begins  to  deteriorate;  man  can 
do  that.  But  it  is  quite  another  and  a  grander 
thing  to  make  an  organism  which,  from  the  moment 
it  is  made  and  ever  afterwards,  goes  on  improving 
and  rising  higher  and  higher;  only  God  can  do 
that.  Let  me  give  in  this  connection  the  view 
expressed  by  Darwin  himself  in  his  book,  "The 
Origin  of  Species,"  "There  is  a  grandeur  in  this 
view  of  life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been 
originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms 
or  into  one;  and  that  whilst  this  planet  has  gone 


22  The  Second  Man 

cycling  on,  according  to  the  fixed  law  of  gravity, 
from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms  most 
beautiful,  r.nd  most  wonderful  have  been  and  are 
being  evolved." 

And  as  for  man.  If  man  was  created  at  the  very 
beginning  exactly  as  he  is  to-day  it  is  cause  for  great 
despair.  But  if  during  the  past  man  has  already 
come  so  far  as  to  have  risen  from  the  lower  orders  of 
creation,  then  there  is  hope  that  he  may  rise  even  yet 
to  something  far  superior.  The  evolutionary  theory 
is  essentially  the  optimistic  view  of  man. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  dividing  point  between 
modern  evolutionists  and  Darwin.  Darwin  believed 
that  man  had  ascended  from  the  lower  orders  of 
creation,  and  he  left  it  at  that.  Present  day  evo- 
lutionists qualify  that  view  at  a  very  vital  point. 
They  say  that  man  did  ascend  from  the  lower 
orders  of  creation  physically,  but  not  spiritually; 
that  when  God  had  brought  the  animal  world  to 
such  a  state  of  perfection  that  it  resulted  in  the 
physical  man.  He  then  took  that  physical  man  and 
breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  life,  and  man 
became  a  living  soul.  And  it  would  seem  on  exami- 
nation of  the  Book  of  Genesis  that  this  view  is 
not  only  permissible,  but  requisite.  When  God 
breathed  into  man  the  breath  of  life  man  became 
a  living  soul,  not  a  living  body.    Man  was  a  living 


The  First  Adam  23 


body  before  God  breathed  Into  him  the  breath  of 
life;  the  change  that  came  over  man  at  this  point 
was  not  the  creation  of  physical  life,  but  the  creation 
of  spiritual  life,  that  one  thing  which  so  widely 
differentiates  man  from  the  lower  orders  of  crea- 
tion, and  makes  of  man  a  being  which  can  never  die. 

Men  in  their  haste  have  condemned  the  theory 
of  evolution  as  dishonoring  to  God,  because  we 
are  told  in  Scripture  that  man  is  made  in  the  image 
of  God,  and  it  has  often  been  said  that  when 
evolution  asserts  that  the  physical  ancestor  of  man 
can  be  traced  to  the  lower  orders  of  creation,  that 
evolution  must  therefore  say  that  the  lower  orders 
of  creation  are  also  made  in  the  image  of  God. 
If  there  is  anything  dishonoring  to  God  in  such 
an  argument  it  certainly  is  not  on  the  side  of  evolu- 
tion. Surely  no  one  to-day  holds  the  view  that  it 
is  our  bodies,  heads,  arms,  legs  that  are  made  in 
the  image  of  God.  God  is  not  flesh  and  blood ;  God 
is  spirit  and  they  who  worship  Him  must  wor- 
ship Him  in  spirit  and  not  in  bodily  form. 

We  are  made  in  the  "image  of  God,  but  not 
physically.  These  poor  bodies  of  ours  which  after 
the  soul  has  winged  its  flight  return  to  the  dust 
from  which  they  have  been  made,  these  do  not  con- 
stitute our  likeness  unto  God.  We  are  made  in 
the  image  of  God  spiritually.     It  is  that  part  of 


24  The  Second  Man 

us  that  is  immortal,  the  soul,  that  is  made  in  the 
image  of  God,  and  with  that  part  of  us  evolution 
has  nothing  to  do. 

The  connection  between  man  and  the  lower 
orders  of  creation  is  physical  only,  not  spiritual, 
and  such  a  view  does  not  seem  to  conflict  in  the 
slightest  degree  with  revealed  religion,  but  rather 
helps  to  interpret  it. 

There  are  other  parts  of  Genesis,  for  instance, 
the  giants  that  were  in  the  earth  in  those  days, 
the  distinction  that  is  made  between  the  sons  of 
God  and  the  daughters  of  men,  which  can  be  better 
explained  on  this  basis  of  the  physical  ascent  of 
man  than  upon  any  other. 

This  view  of  evolution  requires  two  definite  crea- 
tive acts  in  man's  experience,  the  first  away  back 
in  unknown  ages  when  physical  life  was  first  brought 
into  being,  and  the  second  when  physical  life  had 
been  evolved  to  that  state  of  perfection  into  which 
God  breathed  the  breath  of  life  to  create  a  soul. 

Between  true  science  and  true  religion  there  can 
be  no  real  conflict.  Both  are  inspired  gifts  of  God 
to  men,  both  proclaim  the  great  eternal  truths  that 
in  the  beginning  God  created,  that  the  world  and 
all  that  therein  is  to-day  have  taken  their  origin 
and  their  being  in  God,  and  that  all  things  are  still 
under  His  guidance  and  control. 


II 

THE  INCARNATION 

Isaiah  7.   14 — Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and 
bear  a  Son 

AS  in  science  so  in  religion  there  are  phenomena 
for  which  as  yet  no  solution  has  been  found. 
One  of  the  subjects  that  has  baffled  the  theologians 
is  the  advent  of  sin.  Where  did  it  come  from? 
Who  first  conceived  the  idea  of  doing  wrong? 
Do  we  not  believe  that  God  created  the  whole  world 
and  all  things  that  are  therein?  Did  God  therefore 
create  sin?  We  say,  of  course  not — it  came  by  man's 
disobedience.  But  the  next  question  that  arises  is 
this — who  put  it  into  man's  mind  to  disobey? 
Where  did  the  Tempter  come  from?  St.  Luke 
gives  a  partial  explanation  when  he  records  our 
Saviour  as  saying,  "I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall 
from  heaven."  This  statement  is  the  foundation 
for  the  belief  that  Satan  was  at  one  time  an 
angel,  but  that  he  rebelled  against  God  and  was 
ejected  from  heaven.  But  instantly  the  question 
comes  back — who  put  it  into  the  mind  of  an  angel  to 
rebel  against  God?     This  brings  us  back  to  the 

25 


26  The  Second  Man 

primary  issue — the  origin  of  sin.  As  we  have  al- 
ready said,  there  are  some  things  which  cannot  be 
answered,  and  the  question  of  the  origin  of  sin  is  one 
of  the  most  difficult.  It  may  be  that  in  the  sight  of 
God  neither  angels  nor  men  could  render  a  satis- 
factory and  perfect  obedience  apart  from  the  possi- 
bility of  disobedience,  and  that  possibility  of  disobey- 
ing became  the  first  tendency  towards  sin. 

The  view  that  Satan  is  a  fallen  angel  finds  ex- 
pression in  Milton's  'Taradise  Lost," 

"what  cause 
Moved  our  grand  parents,  in  that  happy  state, 
Favour'd  of  Heaven  so  highly,  to  fall  off 
From  their  Creator,  and  transgress  His  will 
For  one  restraint,  lords  of  the  world  besides? 
Who  first  seduced  them  to  that  foul  revolt? 
The  infernal  Serpent;  he  it  was,  whose  guile, 
Stirr'd  up  with  envy  and  revenge,  deceived 
The  mother  of  mankind;  what  time  his  pride 
Had  cast  him  out  from  heaven,  with  all  his  host 
Of  rebel  Angels;  by  whose  aid  aspiring 
To  set  himself  in  glory  above  his  peers. 
He  trusted  to  have  equal'd  the  Most  High, 
If  he  opposed;  and  with  ambitious  aim 
Against  the  throne  and  monarchy  of  God 
Raised  impious  war  in  heaven  and  battle  proud 
With  vain  attempt.    Him  the  Almighty  Power 
Hurl'd  headlong  flaming  from  the  ethereal  sky, 
With  hideous  ruin  and  combustion,  down 


The  Incarnation  27 


To  bottomless  perdition,  there  to  dwell 
In  adamantine  chains  and  penal  fire, 
Who  durst  defy  the  Omnipotent  to  arms." 

Whatever  the  source  of  sin,  this  much  we  know 
that  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  God  promised 
through  the  prophets  that  He  would  send  His  only- 
Son  into  the  world  to  overcome  sin,  "Behold  a  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  Son."  This  prophecy 
with  its  fulfilment  as  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  plunges  us  into  one  of  the  most  funda- 
mental, and  at  the  same  time  a  very  difficult  doctrine 
of  the  Christian  faith,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  Christ.  The  child  Jesus  did  not 
have  two  earthly  parents  as  did  other  children. 
Only  one  was  earthly,  the  other  was  spiritual:  "con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary." 

Many  earnest  conscientious  people  have  their 
doubts  concerning  this  doctrine.  It  seems  to  them 
incredible  that  such  a  thing  should  have  taken  place ; 
indeed  many  condemn  the  doctrine  outright  as 
physically  impossible.  But  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  not  without  its  defenders  even  on 
the  physical  side.  Lord  Kelvin  is  one  who  be- 
lieves that  virgin  birth  is  not  physically  impossible, 
though  so  extremely  exceptional  that  its  recurrence 
is  not  likely.     It  is  significant  in  dealing  with  the 


28  The  Second  Man 

physical  side  of  the  problem  to  observe  that  the 
most  complete  account  of  the  birth  of  Christ  is 
given  by  St.  Luke.  Luke  was  a  physician,  and 
probably  questioned  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
more  than  the  other  disciples  of  his  day  vrould 
question  it.  He  therefore  went  into  the  matter 
more  deeply  and  obtained  facts  which  could  only 
have  come  directly  from  Mary  or  from  "those  other 
women"  who  were  on  exceedingly  intimate  relation- 
ships with  her.  At  any  rate  we  must  agree  that 
the  early  chapters  of  the  third  gospel  demonstrate 
clearly  that  St.  Luke  investigated  the  matter  of  the 
miraculous  conception  of  the  child  Jesus  thoroughly, 
and  was  so  convinced  of  its  truth  that  he  staked 
his  reputation  as  a  physician  upon  the  evidence  he 
procured. 

But  the  real  answer  to  those  who  object  to  the 
Virgin  Birth  upon  its  physical  side  is  that  the 
doctrine  needs  no  explanation.  It  is  miraculous. 
God  is  the  Giver  of  all  life,  and  if  He  chooses  to 
create  life  a  little  out  of  the  ordinary  is  it  not 
presumption  for  us  whom  He  has  also  created  to 
complain  or  criticise  His  methods?  H  we  grant 
the  miraculous  when  God  breathed  into  the  first 
Adam  the  breath  of  life,  and  if  Christ  is  the  second 
Adam  as  St.  Paul  affirms,  it  is  natural  to  expect  the 
miraculous  also  in  His  incarnation. 


The  Incarnation  29 


But  there  are  many  objections  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Virgin  Birth  which  do  not  lie  on  the  physical 
side.  Many  people  would  be  willing  to  pass  over 
that.  But  there  seems  to  them  something  incredible 
in  the  assertion  that  the  actual  Son  of  God  from 
heaven  did  come  down  to  earth  to  live  here  as  man, 
and  so  like  man  that  people  seeing  Him  so  fre- 
quently saw  little  or  no  difference  between  Him 
and  other  men.  Christ,  it  would  be  freely  admitted, 
was  the  godliest,  the  most  perfect  man  that  ever 
lived,  yet  only  human.  What  follows?  Chris- 
tianity bids  us  worship  as  God  some  one  who  is 
not  God.  Let  us  force  this  issue  to  its  final  con- 
clusion, for  it  is  one  of  the  most  convincing  argu- 
ments for  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and 
for  the  divinity  of  Christ.  If  Christ  had  two 
earthly  parents  and  as  a  result  He  is  only  human, 
Christianity  which  worships  Him  as  God  becomes 
the  greatest  system  of  idolatry  which  the  history 
of  religion  can  produce.  By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them.  The  man  who  denies  the  doctrine  of 
the  Virgin  Birth  has  a  tremendous  problem  on  his 
hands.  He  must  account  for  a  religion,  false 
from  the  ground  up,  proving  its  moral  and  ethical 
superiority  over  every  other  religion,  creating  a 
more  profound  influence  upon  mankind  than  any 
other  religion  has  ever  made.     Far  easier  is  the 


30  The  Second  Man 

acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and 
the  explanation  of  Christianity  as  the  result  of  the 
twofold  nature  of  Christ,  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man,  than  the  denial  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  the 
consequent  attempt  to  explain  Christianity  from 
the  manhood  of  Christ  alone. 

To  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  to 
deny  that  Christ  is  the  Messiah,  for  the  prophecies 
demand  that  Messiah  be  born  of  a  virgin.  To  deny 
the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  to  deny  that 
Christ  is  divine,  for  if  Christ  had  two  earthly 
parents  He  is  not  in  any  particular  sense  the  Son  of 
God.  To  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
is  to  make  the  whole  life  and  teachings  of  Christ 
false,  for  He  claimed  for  Himself  equality  with 
God.  To  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
is  to  turn  the  Christian  religion  into  a  gigantic 
system  of  idolatry,  for  to  worship  some  one  who  is 
only  man  is  idolatry.  To  deny  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  to  deny  to  mankind  the  hope  of 
salvation  through  Christ.  This  is  a  bold  statement 
which  remains  to  be  justified  towards  the  end  of 
our  address. 

Deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  what 
follows?  No  Christmas  season  of  reunion,  no  Santa 
Claus  for  the  children,  no  joyous  resurrection  hymns 
on  Easter  morning,  no  calling  to  repentance  during 


The  Incarnation  31 

the  season  of  Lent,  no  earnest  expectations  of  Ad- 
vent season;  we  can  throw  our  Prayer  Books  and 
our  liturgies  into  the  fire;  we  can  tear  the  New 
Testament  from  our  Bibles.  If  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  false,  all  these  things  are  false,  for 
they  are  built  upon  it.  In  truth,  if  the  doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  false  we  Christians  are  of 
all  men  most  miserable. 

Is  this  statement  an  exaggeration?  Not  at  all! 
The  Jews  do  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  and  the  Jew  follows  his  belief  to  the  only 
logical  conclusion.  What  is  the  result  ?  No  Christ- 
mas season  of  reunion,  no  Santa  Claus  for  the  chil- 
dren, no  joyous  resurrection  hymns  on  Easter  day, 
no  season  of  Advent  or  of  Lent,  no  Christian 
Church,  no  New  Testament. 

But  there  are  many  who  say,  let  us  pass  over 
the  question  of  the  birth  of  Christ  in  silence;  let 
us  inquire  into  His  life,  His  teachings,  they  are  the 
all  important  part.  Not  so.  It  is  not  by  the  life 
and  works  of  Christ  that  man  is  saved;  salvation 
is  possible  only  as  the  result  of  His  death.  And 
the  perfect  sacrifice  He  made  on  Calvary  was  pos- 
sible, not  only  on  account  of  the  sinless  life  He 
lived,  but  also  on  account  of  the  sinless  and  miracu- 
lous nature  of  His  birth. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of   Christ 


32  The  Second  Man 

falls,  the  doctrine  of  redemption  for  the  human  race 
through  His  death  must  also  fall.  Why  is  this 
necessary  ?  Why  is  it  essential  that  the  two  natures, 
human  and  divine,  should  be  united  into  one? 
Among  the  most  convincing  answers  given  to  this 
question  is  that  of  Anselm.  Briefly  it  is  this. 
When  man  fell  into  sin  and  was  estranged  from 
God,  in  absolute  justice  God  pronounced  the 
penalty  of  death  upon  the  human  race  as  the  result 
of  sin.  But  God  is  love,  and  God  desired  to 
restore  man,  to  make  atonement  for  His  sin  and 
lift  from  him  the  penalty  of  death.  But  how  could 
it  be  done?  Man  himself  could  not  atone  for  his 
past  sins,  for  if  man  henceforth  did  live  a  sinless 
life,  in  perfect  obedience  to  God,  he  would  be  ful- 
filling only  his  duty  towards  God  day  by  day,  and 
in  no  way  would  he  be  making  restitution  for  the 
past.  God  alone  possessed  the  power  to  make 
restitution  for  man's  sin;  but  God  must  not  do  it 
because  it  was  man,  not  God,  who  had  committed 
the  offence  and  in  absolute  justice  the  offender 
must  make  restitution  or  pay  the  penalty.  How, 
then,  was  it  to  be  accomplished?  God  alone  could 
do  it;  but  man  alone  must  do  it.  The  only  way 
left  was  for  God  to  become  man  and  as  a  human 
being  to  redeem  mankind. 

Thus  Christ  the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son 


The  Incarnation  33 

of  Man.  Throughout  His  life  on  earth  He  re- 
sisted all  temptations,  and  because  of  His  miraculous 
conception  He  was  not  born  under  bondage  to  sin 
as  other  men.  Therefore,  having  no  sin  in  Him 
the  penalty  of  death  did  not  apply  to  Him.  Had 
Christ  committed  sin,  or  had  He  been  born  of  two 
earthly  parents  as  other  men  and  therefore  in 
bondage  to  sin.  His  death  would  have  been  but  the 
result  of  sin  within  His  own  life.  But  because  the 
penalty  of  death  was  not  pronounced  on  Him,  God 
could  in  perfect  justice  accept  His  voluntary  death 
in  place  of  ours.  As  far  as  Christ's  own  personal 
fitness  was  concerned  He  might  have  ascended  into 
heaven  before  His  death  as  well  as  after  it.  But 
that  would  have  been  to  defeat  His  whole  purpose 
in  coming  to  earth,  the  death  penalty  would  not 
have  been  lifted  from  the  human  race.  He  died  that 
we  might  live. 

Thus  the  conclusion  of  our  argument  is  this.  In 
order  that  Christ's  death  should  be  substituted  for 
ours.  His  death  must  have  been  purely  voluntary, 
and  in  no  way  merited  by  sin  within  His  own  life. 
His  life  must  have  been  free  from  sin  not  only  be- 
tween His  birth  and  death,  but  His  birth  itself 
must  have  been  extraordinary,  miraculous,  otherwise 
like  other  children  He  would  have  come  into  the 
world  under  the  shadow  of  death.     Viewed  in  this 


34  The  Second  Man 

light  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  becomes  no 
longer  a  stumbling-block  to  the  believer,  but  the  very 
rock-foundation  on  which  our  hope  of  redemption 
rests.  The  stone  which  many  have  rejected  becomes 
the  corner-stone  of  the  Christian  Church. 


Ill 

THE  SECOND  ADAM 

I  Cor.  15.  47 — The  second  man  is  the  Lord  from 
heaven 

WHEN  God  breathed  into  man  the  breath  of 
hfe  and  man  became  a  living  soul,  the 
world  lay  there  before  him  to  be  mastered  or  to  mas- 
ter him.  Two  courses  were  presented;  to  follow 
in  obedience  the  will  of  His  Creator  or  to  disobey. 
Sufficient  strength  was  given  him  to  do  the  will 
of  God,  but  with  that  strength  was  also  given  free- 
dom to  choose  the  other  if  he  would.  Man  chose 
the  evil  and  despised  the  good,  and  God  in  justice 
pronounced  the  penalty  of  death.  The  death  penalty 
pronounced  upon  the  human  race  may  have  implied 
the  physical,  but  it  meant  primarily  the  spiritual; 
it  meant  separation  from  the  presence  of  Jehovah. 
In  this  regard  God  suffered  as  well  as  man,  for  He 
had  made  man  in  the  image  of  Himself  to  live  with 
Him  forever. 

But  man  had  sinned,  and  sin  can  never  enter  into 
heaven.  Moreover  the  taint  of  sin  had  so  affected 
and  permeated  man's  whole  being  that  from  hence- 

35 


36  The  Second  Man 

forth  the  tendency  to  sin  was  bequeathed  to  all 
posterity.  Does  it  follow  then  that  the  plans  of 
God  in  creating  man  for  heaven  were  all  frustrated 
by  the  Devil  when  he  seduced  humanity  to  sin? 
Nay!  we  answer  instantly,  God  is  omnipotent  and 
merciful  and  sent  His  only  Son,  to  suffer,  to  be 
nailed  upon  the  cross,  to  die  for  us,  the  just  for 
the  unjust,  and  to  rise  again  victorious  over  death, 
then  to  ascend  into  heaven  and  lay  His  conquest 
of  humanity  before  the  throne  of  God. 

But  if  God  is  omnipotent  and  merciful  could  He 
not  have  given  the  command  for  sin  to  be  removed 
from  earth  without  such  suffering  on  the  part  of 
Christ?  No  doubt  He  could.  But  God  is  justice 
too.  And  since  man  had  sinned,  man  must  make 
atonement  for  his  sin.  But  man  had  so  far  fallen 
that  he  could  make  no  restitution  for  the  past. 
There  remained  then,  it  would  seem,  but  one  plan 
of  redemption;  for  God  to  make  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  man,  but  to  do  it  not  as  God,  but  as  man. 

And  this  was  what  was  done,  for  Jesus  Christ 
the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  Man,  became, 
as  St.  Paul  has  said,  the  second  man,  the  last 
Adam.  Wherein  lies  the  likeness  to  the  first  man 
that  was  created?  In  this — each  entered  into  the 
world  free  from  sin,  Adam  because  he  was  the 
firstborn  of  mankind,  Christ  because  of  His  miracu- 


The  Second  Adam  37 

lous  birth.  Each  entered  the  world  endowed  with 
sufficient  grace  to  withstand  the  temptations  of  the 
world.  Each  possessed  that  freedom  of  will  which 
enabled  him  to  determine  for  himself  the  course 
that  he  would  follow,  to  choose  the  evil  or  to 
choose  the  good. 

The  first  Adam  was  tempted  to  do  evil  and 
yielded.  The  second  Adam  was  tempted  to  do  evil 
and  resisted.  We  have  often  heard  it  said  that 
God  expected  too  much  of  the  first  Adam,  but  God, 
to  prove  that  He  had  not  expected  the  impossible 
of  man,  placed  the  second  Adam,  His  own  Son,  in 
the  same  position. 

Christ  came  to  earth  as  a  little  babe,  and  yet 
there  was  a  difference  between  that  babe  born  in 
the  manger  in  Bethlehem  and  other  babes.  Others 
born  of  natural  fathers  are  born  with  sin  inherent 
in  their  natures;  Christ  begotten  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  without  sin.  But  that  little  babe  as  it  lay 
in  the  manger  was  not  conscious  of  its  own  divinity, 
not  conscious  of  its  miraculous  birth,  not  conscious 
of  any  difference  between  itself  and  other  children. 
St.  Luke  tells  us  that  the  child  Jesus  increased  in 
wisdom  and  in  stature  and  in  favor  with  God  and 
man.  (How  like  the  first  Adam!  For  before 
the  fall  at  least,  it  could  be  said  of  him  that  he  in- 
creased  in   wisdom   and   in   stature   and   in    favor 


38  The  Second  Man 

with  God  and  man.)  Now  to  increase  in  wisdom 
precludes  the  possibility  of  omniscience  on  the  part 
of  Christ,  and  omniscience  is  an  attribute  of  God. 
This,  together  with  the  fact  that  He  increased 
in  favor  with  God,  seems  to  make  it  clear  beyond 
all  question  that  in  coming  to  earth  Christ  had  laid 
aside  His  robes  of  divinity  to  face  life  not  as  God, 
but  as  man.  He  took  upon  Himself  our  human 
nature,  and  as  the  first  Adam  was  tempted  in  the 
garden  of  Eden,  so  was  the  second  Adam  tempted, 
sorely  tempted,  in  the  wilderness  by  the  same  Devil. 
Here  is  the  central  point  of  the  whole  analogy 
between  the  first  and  the  second  Adam.  We  believe 
that  Christ  was  tempted  as  Adam  was  tempted. 
Then  it  must  follow  that  it  was  just  as  possible 
for  Christ  to  fall  before  that  temptation  as  it  was 
for  Adam.  We  generally  let  our  faith  go  so  far  as 
to  believe  that  God  permitted  Christ  to  be  tempted ; 
but  then  we  like  to  think  that  God  upheld  Him 
by  the  power  of  His  grace  so  that  He  could  not 
fall.  Then  the  temptation  becomes  shrouded  in  a 
mist  of  unreality.  We  see  Adam  and  we  see  Christ 
in  an  unequal  warfare  against  evil.  Adam  faces  his 
adversary  armed  with  his  sabre  and  his  shield, 
sufficient  if  he  is  always  on  guard;  Christ  bears 
similar  armour,  but  underneath  His  outer  garments 
there  is  a  coat  of  mail  which   the   Devil  carmot 


The  Second  Adam  39 

pierce.  No,  that  cannot  be.  It  is  not  just.  They 
are  equally  armed.  Each  has  sufficient  armour  to 
defend  himself,  but  each  is  vulnerable.  And  to 
deny  that  the  armour  of  Christ  was  vulnerable  is 
to  deny  His  true  humanity;  it  is  to  say  that  God 
placed  Adam  in  a  danger  to  which  He  would  not 
expose  His  Son.  Nay!  rather  God  placed  Adam 
here  and  gave  him  armour  sufficient  to  defend  him- 
self, and  when  Adam  was  taken  off  his  guard 
and  fell,  God  clothed  His  own  Son  with  the  armour 
which  He  had  given  Adam  and  sent  Him  forth  to 
fight  against  the  enemy  of  man.  St.  Paul  testifies 
clearly  to  this  fact  of  Christ's  humanity  and  makes 
the  comparison  between  the  first  and  second  Adam 
undeniable  when  he  says,  "For  since  by  man  came 
death  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead." 

An  illustration  is  furnished  in  the  conduct  of  the 
present  Prince  of  Wales  who,  before  the  war,  had 
laid  aside  his  royal  robes  in  order  to  become  a  sailor. 
And  as  a  sailor  he  was  required  to  observe  the  same 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  ship  as  other  sailors, 
he  was  tempted  by  their  temptations.  The  elements 
had  no  respect  for  his  royal  person;  the  perils  of 
the  sea  were  just  as  great  for  him  as  they  were 
for  any  sailor.  H  he  had  chosen  to  do  so,  he 
might  have  remained   in  his   father's  royal  palace 


40  The  Second  Man 

and  lived  the  life  of  a  prince,  but  he  chose  to  lay 
aside  his  royal  robes  and  face  life  as  a  man. 

Of  His  own  free  will  Christ  laid  aside  the  robes 
of  His  divinity  and  faced  life  as  man;  the  tempta- 
tions that  beset  our  paths  were  brought  to  bear 
on  Him  with  far  more  studied  subtilty,  because  the 
Devil  recognized  the  greatness  of  the  capture  he 
would  make  if  he  could  bring  Christ  to  commit  sin. 
What  if  Christ  had  yielded  to  the  temptation?  One 
hesitates  to  follow  reason  where  it  leads.  God 
is  just.  And  if  Christ  had  yielded  then  surely  He 
too  would  have  received  the  same  sentence  of  judg- 
ment as  was  meted  out  to  Adam,  death,  spiritual 
death,  separation  from  God,  never  to  regain  heaven. 
O!  the  length,  the  breadth,  the  depth  of  the  love 
of  God;  for  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave 
His  only  Son. 

Just  how  nearly  Christ  came  to  yielding  to  that 
temptation  in  the  wilderness  we  cannot  know. 
When  the  traveller  in  an  unknown  region  in  the 
dead  of  night  pitches  his  tent,  and  in  the  morning 
sees  a  few  paces  before  him  a  yawning  gulf  whose 
bottom  he  cannot  discern,  he  shudders  to  think  hov/ 
nearly  he  has  stood  upon  the  brink  of  his  destruc- 
tion. And  throughout  the  remainder  of  his  life 
that  terrible  abyss  flashes  at  intervals  unbidden 
before  his  mind.     He  is  startled  in  his  dreams,  on 


The  Second  Adam 


the  street,  in  his  office,  he  cannot  drive  it  from 
him.  His  closest  friends  have  often  heard  of  it. 
Now  is  it  too  much  to  infer  that  there  was  a  similar 
spectre  looming  up  unbidden  before  the  mind  of 
Christ?  Naturally  those  who  have  recorded  His 
words  would  be  most  deeply  impressed  with  the 
things  that  He  had  most  frequently  mentioned  to 
them  in  their  daily  talks.  Among  the  sayings  of 
our  Lord  most  frequently  mentioned  in  the  gospels 
there  is  this,  *'What  will  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain 
the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul?"  Did  Christ 
realize  in  later  days  how  nearly  He  had  stood  upon 
the  brink  of  His  destruction  there  in  the  wilderness 
in  His  conflict  with  the  Devil?  Did  there  recur 
to  Him  again  and  again  the  awfulness  of  that  hour 
when  He  almost  yielded  to  the  persuasions  to  ac- 
cept an  earthly  kingdom?  To  deny  that  He  had 
nearly  yielded  is  to  deny  the  keenness  and  the  bit- 
terness of  the  temptation. 

Just  so  far  as  we  believe  in  the  reality  of  the 
temptation,  so  far  are  we  permitted  to  believe  that 
Christ  could  have  fallen  into  sin;  and  just  so  far 
as  we  believe  in  the  intensity  of  His  temptation, 
so  far  are  we  compelled  to  believe  that  Christ  stood 
upon  the  very  verge  of  yielding,  stood  upon  the 
very  verge  of  death,  stood  upon  the  very  verge  of 
separation  from  His  Father  and  of  losing  heaven 


42  The  Second  Man 

itself.  This  is  the  sacrifice  which  God  the  Father 
made  when  He  gave  His  only  Son  to  make  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  man. 

When  the  nation  was  endangered  and  the  father 
called  his  only  son,  and  laid  his  hand  in  blessing 
on  his  head,  he  gave  him  to  fight  the  battles  of 
his  country  and  his  king,  gave  him  knowing  that 
he  would  suffer  many  hardships  and  privations, 
gave  him  hoping  that  he  would  return  crowned  with 
glory  and  with  honor;  but  gave  him  for  his  country 
if  need  be  unto  defeat  and  wounds,  gave  him  if 
need  be  unto  death  itself.  When  our  Heavenly 
Father  sent  forth  His  only  begotten  Son  He  blessed 
Him  and  He  gave  Him  to  the  world,  gave  Him 
to  redeem  mankind,  gave  Him  to  suffer  and  to  be 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  gave  Him  hoping 
He  would  return  victorious  crowned  with  immortal 
glory  and  honor;  but  gave  Him,  if  need  be,  unto 
death  and  separation  from  Himself. 

No  verse  in  Holy  Scripture  is  more  familiar  to 
us  than  this,  "God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave 
His  only  begotten  Son."  But  somehow  there  is  a 
tendency  to  read  those  words,  "God  so  loved  the 
world  that  He  loaned  His  only  Son,"  loaned  Him 
for  a  few  years  to  be  misunderstood,  to  be  despised 
and  rejected  of  men,  to  be  condemned  to  death, 
crucified  and  buried,  but  loaned  Him  to  the  world 


The  Second  Adam  43 

that  He  might  rise  again  triumphant  over  death 
with  the  conquest  of  all  humanity  to  glorify  for- 
evermore  His  holy  name.  But  how  much  greater 
does  it  make  the  sacrifice  of  God  appear  when  we 
try  to  realize  that  God  did  not  merely  loan  His 
Son,  but  that  He  gave  Him  to  the  world! 


IV 


THE  SACRIFICE 


Matthew  26.  38 — My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful 
even    unto   death 

Matthew   27.   46 — My    God,   my   God,  why    hast 
Thou  forsaken  mef 

INTO  the  lives  of  most  men  there  come  moments 
which  cannot  be  effaced.  They  are  impressed 
indelibly  into  his  very  being.  To  the  scientist  the 
discovery  of  some  hitherto  unknown  phenomenon 
will  bring  a  thrill  of  joy  which  he  never  can  for- 
get. Astronomers  have  calculated  mathematically 
that  an  altogether  unknown  body  must  be  in  a 
certain  place,  and  when  one  who  has  made  this 
calculation  turns  his  powerful  telescope  upon  the 
spot  and  finds  his  star  he  shouts  for  joy.  To  the 
explorer  that  hour  comes  when  he  discovers  a  new 
island  or  lake.  To  the  man  of  business  that  hour 
is  swept  in  by  the  assurance  of  success.  To  the 
student  of  Holy  Scripture  that  hour  comes,  some- 
times like  a  flash,  as  some  new  interpretation  of 
the  Word  of  God  stands  out  before  him.  To  me 
that  hour  has  come  twice;  once  as  the  result  of 

44 


The  Sacrifice  45 


study,  once  almost  by  accident.  It  came  first  in 
academic  days  in  the  study  of  Anselm's  Cur  Deus 
Homo,  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made 
in  our  study  of  the  Incarnation,  Anselm's  concep- 
tion of  Christ's  purpose  in  coming  to  earth.  That 
view  of  Anselm  seemed  to  satisfy  a  great  longing; 
it  is  one  of  those  genuine  explanations  which  takes 
a  difficult  doctrine  such  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  and  makes  it  appear  not  only  possible,  but 
inevitable. 

But  the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Christ  was 
still  veiled  in  a  great  mystery.  The  professors 
under  whom  it  was  my  privilege  to  sit  were  learned 
doctors  whose  names  stood  out  and  still  stand  out 
as  great  authorities,  nevertheless  in  college  days  I  did 
not  find  that  satisfying  explanation  of  the  death  of 
Christ  which  Anselm  had  given  of  His  birth.  There 
were  two  questions  for  which  I  could  not  find 
an  answer  that  would  satisfy.  First,  why  did  our 
Saviour  shrink  so  visibly  from  the  cross  when 
a  few  years  later  His  followers  sang  hymns  of  tri- 
umph as  the  flames  leaped  up  around  them?  The 
cross  could  not  have  been  a  more  painful  death  than 
death  by  fire,  except  that  the  agony  was  prolonged ; 
the  cross  could  not  have  been  as  painful  physically  as 
the  death  to  which  some  of  the  early  missionaries 
in  North  America  were  subjected  by  the  Indians. 


46  The  Second  Man 

Why  did  Christ  shrink  from  the  cross  when  so 
many  of  His  followers  have  gone  to  their  deaths 
singing  hymns  of  triumph?  And  the  other  ques- 
tion is  this.  Have  not  thousands  laid  down  their 
lives  in  order  to  save  for  a  few  years  the  life  of 
one  they  loved  ?  Then  why  should  Christ,  knowing 
that  after  death  He  would  be  back  in  eternal  glory 
with  His  Father,  to  lay  before  the  throne  of  God 
the  victory  over  sin  which  would  enable  all  man- 
kind to  escape  the  penalty  of  death,  why  should  He 
shrink  from  a  few  hours  of  painful  death?  The 
question  has  come  again  and  again,  reverently  I 
think, — what  man  is  there  who  would  not  have  done 
it  if  he  could?  The  most  satisfactory  answer  I 
had  found  was  well  expressed  in  a  short  article 
written  by  a  Glasgow  minister.  Briefly  the  ex- 
planation was  this,  that  Father  and  Son  had  been 
living  together  in  perfect  harmony  and  love  from 
the  very  beginning.  On  account  of  man's  dis- 
obedience it  was  necessary  that  that  harmony  and 
friendship  should  be  broken  for  a  time.  The  Son 
must  go  down  to  earth  to  redeem  the  human  race; 
there  must  be  a  separation  between  Father  and 
Son  for  more  than  thirty  years  during  which  time 
the  Son  would  suffer  intensely.  He  would  be  de- 
spised and  rejected  of  men.  He  would  eventually 
be  nailed  upon  the  cross.     And  just  as  it  is  hard 


The  Sacrifice  47 


for  an  earthly  father  and  son  who  love  each  other 
truly  to  be  separated  for  a  season,  so  because  the 
love  between  our  Heavenly  Father  and  His  Son 
was  infinite,  the  pain  of  separation  was  infinitely 
great. 

I  can  never  forget  the  day  I  found  the  real 
answer  to  my  questions,  as  at  random  I  drew  a  book 
from  the  library  shelves  of  the  clergyman  whom 
I  was  assisting.  The  book  was  a  volume  of  sermons 
by  Dr.  Jowett,  "Apostolic  Optimism,"  and  the  ad- 
dress was  on  the  text,  "He  died  for  all."  As  I 
read,  it  seemed  that  a  new  world  was  opening  out 
to  me.  It  was  the  thing  for  which  I  had  been 
searching  for  years.  It  was  the  most  priceless  revela- 
tion I  had  ever  had,  and  to-day,  years  later,  it 
remains  the  sheet  anchor  of  my  faith  in  Christ's 
atoning  sacrifice.  Most  earnestly  do  I  desire  to 
thank  Dr.  Jowett  for  that  explanation  of  the 
sacrifice  that  was  made  in  Gethsemane  and  on 
Calvary. 

It  is  the  greatest  misconception  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  to  attempt  to  explain  His  suffering  and 
death  in  terms  of  physical  agony  upon  the  cross, 
for,  as  Dr.  Jowett  points  out  so  clearly,  that  was  not 
His  real  death  at  all;  that  was  an  experience  which 
in  the  case  of  the  little  maid  and  again  in  the  case 
of  Lazarus,  both  of  whom  He  had  raised  from  the 


48  The  Second  Man 

dead,  our  Saviour  called  sleep.  The  passing  of 
animation  from  His  own  body  He  Himself  would 
not  have  called  death;  He  would  have  called  it 
sleep.  His  death  was  something  else.  Two  of 
His  expressions  give  us  the  real  meaning.  In  the 
agony  in  Gethsemane  He  exclaimed,  "My  soul  is 
exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death."  What  is 
this?  The  death  of  the  soul!  We  are  coming 
nearer  to  the  tragic  reality  of  the  passion  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Then  upon  the  cross  listen  to  His  words, 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me?" 
(I  cannot  refrain  from  quoting  the  words  of  Dr. 
Jowett.)  "That  was  death.  What  would  follow 
would  be  only  sleep.  That  was  death — appalling 
midnight  in  the  soul,  the  horror  of  a  great  dark- 
ness, exceeding  desolation,  abandonment!  That 
was  death — the  Father's  house  obscured,  the 
Father's  hand  vanished,  and  the  Son  of  God  in 
the  outer  darkness,  in  the  agonies  of  a  consuming 
loneliness!  That  was  death — the  sinless  Saviour 
out  there  in  the  night,  in  the  abandonment  which 
is  called  the  "wages  of  sin."  What  we  call  death, 
Christ  called  sleep.     "Christ  died." 

And  when  we  come  to  consider  the  purpose  which 
our  Saviour  had  in  coming  to  earth  how  could  it 
have  been  otherwise?  He  came  to  set  us  free  from 
the  penalty  of  death.    We  ask  ourselves  when  and 


The  Sacrifice  49 


by  whom  that  death  penalty  had  been  pronounced. 
It  had  been  pronounced  by  God  when  our  first 
parents  sinned.  What  was  it?  What  did  it  mean ? 
Surely  not  physical  death,  for  Adam  and  Eve  lived 
for  years  and  begat  sons  and  daughters  after  the 
penalty  had  been  pronounced.  No,  the  penalty  was 
not  physical;  it  was  spiritual.  The  direct  results 
were  that  man  was  thrust  out  of  the  garden  of 
Eden;  but  the  real  penalty  was  that  man  was  cut 
off  from  personal  communion  with  God,  cast  out 
into  outer  darkness  to  battle  against  the  inevitable 
consequences  of  sin.  The  death  penalty  pronounced 
upon  the  human  race  as  a  result  of  sin  was  spiritual, 
not  physical;  it  was  the  death,  not  of  the  body 
which  God  had  created  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
earth,  but  the  death  of  the  soul  which  He  had 
created  by  breathing  into  that  body  the  breath  of 
life.  That  was  the  death  which  had  been  pro- 
nounced upon  the  human  race.  That  was  the  death 
which  Christ  came  to  lift  from  ofE  the  human  race. 
That,  therefore,  must  have  been  the  death  He 
died. 

To  say  that  the  death  from  which  Christ  came 
to  set  us  free  was  physical,  and  that  the  death 
which  He  Himself  died  on  Calvary  was  physical 
is  to  attribute  failure  to  His  work,  for  He  has 
not  set  us  free  from  physical  death.     But  if  the 


50  The  Second  Man 

death  from  which  He  came  to  set  us  free  was  not 
physical  but  spiritual  and  eternal,  then  likewise 
the  death  which  He  died  must  have  been  spiritual 
and  eternal.  It  had  to  be.  For  if  Christ  did  not 
die  eternal  death  for  us  we  are  still  in  our  sins 
and  the  penalty  of  eternal  death,  which  God  pro- 
nounced upon  the  sins  of  Adam,  still  hangs  over 
us. 

''My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken 
me?"  What  is  the  meaning  of  that  cry?  It  means 
that  at  the  end  God  withdrew  from  Christ  and 
the  Saviour  of  the  world  faced  death  alone,  faced 
it  under  the  conviction  that  His  life  and  work  had 
failed.  Of  His  own  free  will  He  had  laid  aside 
the  attributes  of  His  divinity  to  face  life  as  man, 
in  order  to  redeem  the  human  race.  He  had  fought 
hard  and  bitter  conflicts  with  the  Devil.  He  was 
not  conscious  of  having  committed  any  sin.  Was 
it  possible  that  sin  had  crept  in  unawares?  If 
so — well  He  knew  that  God  was  justice  absolute. 
He  knew  that  though  He  was  not  conscious  of 
having  committed  any  sin,  yet  if  to  the  piercing  eye 
of  God  there  were  any  traces  of  sin,  then  at  the 
bar  of  eternal  justice  His  death  would  be  con- 
sidered but  the  payment  of  the  penalty  for  His 
own  sins.  Unless  it  were  that  sin  had  crept  in 
unawares  why  should  the  Father  turn  away  from 


The  Sacrifice  51 


Him  in  the  hour  of  His  greatest  need?  Surely  it 
was  on  the  cross  even  more  than  at  His  baptism 
that  He  needed  the  reassuring  voice  from  heaven, 
''This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  But  on  the  cross  no  reassuring  voice 
from  heaven  came  to  give  Him  strength,  no  answer 
to  His  agonizing  prayer,  only  a  terrible  and  awful 
silence.  He  was  deserted  by  His  Father.  He  was 
facing  death  alone, — spiritual,  eternal  death.  Thus 
subjectively  Christ  suffered  all  the  agonies  of  that 
spiritual  death  which  was  pronounced  upon  a  sinful 
human  race — a  death  which  meant  eternal  separa- 
tion from  God. 

Now  where  does  the  martyr's  stake  appear  in 
comparison?  The  martyr  faces  the  flames  with 
certain  hope  that  because  Christ  died  for  him  and 
triumphed  over  death  that  he  will  only  suffer  a  few 
hours  at  most  of  physical  death,  but  that  his  spirit 
freed  from  death  by  reason  of  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  will  wing  its  way  to  eternal  glory 
in  the  presence  of  Christ.  He  faces  death  in  the 
certainty  of  resurrection  to  eternal  life.  Christ 
faced  death  in  uncertainty,  no  one  before  Him  had 
ever  triumphed  over  death,  faced  it  at  the  end  under 
the  conviction  that  He  had  lost.  "My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me?"  Place  the 
Christian  martyr  at  the  stake  and  let  him  feel  that 


52  The  Second  Man 

God  has  deserted  him  as  Christ  felt  that  He  was 
deserted — let  him  feel  in  the  hour  of  his  death  that 
he  is  lost  from  God  and  heaven  as  Christ  felt  that 
He  was  lost,  and  then  he  will  not  be  able  to  sing 
hymns  of  joy  and  triumph.  Under  the  conviction 
of  failure  and  abandonment  we  can  readily  under- 
stand why  Christ  shrank  from  the  sacrifice.  But 
thanks  be  to  God  for  Jesus  Christ  who  faced  the 
agonies  of  eternal  death  for  us,  so  that  if  we  have 
faith  in  Him  we  shall  never  die  the  death  He  died, 
but  we  can  face  our  departure  from  this  life  in 
confidence  that  it  will  be  only  physical  and  not 
spiritual,  only  temporal  and  not  eternal.  He  died 
for  us.  And  standing  by  the  graves  of  our  beloved 
who  sleep  we  can  look  up  and  through  our  tears  of 
natural  human  sorrow  we  can  sing  our  Easter  hymns 
of  triumph  and  of  joy  in  sure  and  certain  hope 
of  the  resurrection  to  eternal  life. 


THE  COMMUNION  OF  THE  SAINTS* 

WHEN  Christianity  began  to  spread  outside 
the  province  of  Judea,  and  had  penetrated 
into  almost  every  part  of  the  Roman  Empire  and 
had  made  converts  of  some  even  in  Caesar's  royal 
household — then  there  w^ent  forth  imperial  edicts 
that  the  Christian  religion  should  be  suppressed. 

After  that,  to  be  called  a  Christian  v^as  sufficient 
vrarrant  for  persecution,  and,  in  many  instances,  for 
death.  Under  such  conditions  the  Christians  could 
not  openly  meet  for  worship,  for  if  they  did  the 
Roman  legions  would  surround  them,  and  the  wor- 
shippers would  be  slain  or  taken  prisoners  to  battle 
later  in  the  arena  with  wild  beasts.  They  dare  not 
approach  a  stranger  and  ask  him  if  he  were  a 
Christian,  for  if  the  man  were  not  a  Christian  his 
suspicions  would  be  aroused  and  the  one  who  had 
asked  the  question  would  be  followed  and  probably 
taken  prisoner  or  even  slain.  How,  then,  were  the 
Christians   to   know    and    recognize   one    another? 

*An  address  at  the  first  Communion  Service  after  new 
candidates  had  been  admitted  into  membership  by  con- 
firmation. 

53 


54  The  Second  Man 

They  did  it  by  signs,  and  one  of  the  signs  most 
commonly  used  was  to  draw  in  the  dust  or  in  the 
sand  or  on  the  walls  the  outline  of  a  fish.  They 
probably  chose  this  sign  on  account  of  our  Lord's 
associations  with  the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  because 
several  of  the  disciples  had  themselves  been  fisher- 
men; perhaps  they  chose  this  sign  because  the  out- 
line of  a  fish  is  so  easily  drawn.  Writers  tell  us 
that  to  this  day  there  can  still  be  found  in  the 
catacombs  of  Rome  these  signs  cut  in  the  walls,  to 
indicate  the  places  where  the  Christians  had  met  in 
secret.  And  in  those  days  of  persecution  how  much 
it  would  mean  to  a  man  to  find  another  who  could 
understand  his  sign !  For  though  the  men  had  never 
met  before  they  would  recognize  in  each  other  in- 
stantly a  friend  and  brother,  and  they  would  be  able 
to  sit  down  and  enjoy  each  other's  friendship  in 
confidence  knowing  that  neither  would  betray  the 
other. 

The  same  is  true  in  fraternal  organizations.  A 
man  belonging  to  a  fraternal  order  can  go  to  a  dis- 
tant town  or  city  and  though  he  knows  no  one  in 
the  place,  by  certain  signs  of  the  order  to  which 
he  belongs,  he  is  received  as  a  friend  and  brother. 

The  Communion  of  the  Saints.  In  confirmation 
classes  where  we  meet  in  small  groups  to  study 
the  teachings  and  the  doctrines  of  our  Church  more 


The  Communion  of  Saints  55 

candidates  ask  for  an  explanation  of  this  expres- 
sion than  any  other. 

Tie  Communion  of  the  Saints.     The  question 
whici  arises  in  the  mind  of  every  one  who  thinks 
upon  this    subject    is    the    meaning    of    the   word 
"sains."     Does  it  mean  those  who  have  passed  to 
their  reward,  or  does  it  mean  those  who  still  remain 
on  earth,  who  have  found  salvation  in  Christ  and 
who  re  living  saintly  Christian  lives?    Which  does 
it  men?    More  and  more  my  convictions  are  turn- 
ing tov^ards  the  view  that  it  means  both.    We  shall 
considr  first  the  Communion  of  the  Saints  on  its 
humarside — the  communion  among  faithful,  ear- 
nest Gristian  men  and  women  who  are  still  on 
earth. 

Whe  Christ  taught  His  own  disciples  how  to 
pray,  ail  gave  to  them  a  form  of  prayer  which  has 
been  haded  down  to  us,   He  taught  us  to  com- 
mence <\T  prayer  in  these  words,   "Our  Father." 
If  God?  your  Father  and  God  is  my  Father  it 
must  foW  that  we  are  brothers,  children  of  the 
One  Ete\al  God.    If  God  is  our  Father,  and  God 
is  the  F^er  of  men  and  women  whom  we  have 
never  see  in  Alaska  and  the  Yukon,   in   Great 
Britain,  iilndia,  in  China,  and  Japan,  if  God  is 
our  Fatheand  the  same  God  is  their  Father,  then 
we  must  a  be  brothers  and  sisters;  and  the  man 


56  The  Second  Man 

or  the  woman  who  will  not  acknowledge  other 
Christians  as  members  of  the  family  to  which  he 
belongs  and  his  equals — that  man  or  that  wonan 
does  not  thereby  thrust  his  neighbor  out  fron  the 
family  of  God  and  from  the  Communion  o  the 
Saints,  but  he  thrusts  himself  out. 

Who  are  numbered  among  the  saints?  Is  t  the 
Church  and  every  member  of  the  Church?  No! 
Not  even  all  of  Christ's  own  disciples  were  num- 
bered among  the  saints. 

We  have  been  accustomed  to  speak  of  four  spects 
or  phases  of  the  Christian  Church — the  (hurch 
Militant  and  the  Church  Triumphant,  the  (Church 
Visible  and  the  Church  Invisible;  and  a  bisf  sur- 
vey of  these  four  terms  will  help  us  to  unerstand 
the  question  we  are  studying,  namely,  th  Com- 
munion of  the  Saints. 

The  Church  Militant,  that  means  the  Church 
at  war,  the  Church  here  on  earth  at  war»vith  sin 
and  iniquity,  at  war  with  idolatry  and  hethenism. 
The  Church  Triumphant  is  the  Church  f  heaven 
where  sin  and  idolatry  have  been  ovePme  and 
where  the  will  of  God  is  done  perfectljand  com- 
pletely. 

Now  what  do  the  terms,  the  Church  isible  and 
the  Church  Invisible  mean  ?  There  h;  been  con- 
siderable confusion  of  ideas,  and  ma;  have  un- 


The  Communion  of  Saints  57 

thinkingly  considered  the  Church  Visible  and  the 
Church  Militant  to  be  one  and  the  same,  that  is 
the  Church  here  on  earth  in  its  conflict  against  sin ; 
and  on  the  other  hand  it  has  been  thought  by  some 
that  the  Church  Invisible  and  the  Church  Tri- 
umphant are  the  same,  the  Church  we  sometimes 
speak  of  as  the  Church  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  the 
Church  of  Heaven.  But  that  is  not  the  meaning 
of  the  terms,  the  Church  Visible  and  the  Church 
Invisible.  The  Church  Visible  is  the  whole  church 
membership  here  on  earth,  both  the  good  and  the 
bad,  both  wheat  and  tares.  The  Church  Invisible 
is  the  Church  within  the  Church,  only  those  who  are 
true  and  sincere — only  the  wheat.  The  Church 
Visible  we  all  can  see;  the  Church  Invisible  we 
cannot  see.  In  the  Visible  Church  we  can  count 
the  membership;  in  the  Church  Invisible  we  can- 
not. If  we  take  the  band  of  Christ's  disciples  as 
the  first  Visible  Church,  there  were  in  that  Church 
twelve  members  besides  Christ,  but  only  eleven  of 
them  were  members  of  the  Church  Invisible.  At 
the  same  time  there  were  several  who  were  not 
numbered  among  the  members  of  the  Church  Visible 
who  were  surely  numbered  in  the  Church  Invisible, 
Mary,  Martha,  Lazarus,  the  mother  of  our  Lord, 
Nicodemus,  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  the  mother  of 
John  Mark. 


58  The  Second  Man 

In  the  Visible  Church  of  this  parish  we  can 
number  with  a  fair  degree  of  accuracy  the  mem- 
bership ;  but  the  membership  of  the  Invisible  Church 
of  this  parish  God  alone  can  number,  and  it  may 
even  be  that  the  two  memberships  would  differ 
considerably.  Last  Sunday  twenty-eight  people 
were  admitted  into  full  membership  in  the  Visible 
Church  through  the  Order  of  Confirmation  by  the 
Bishop.  But  how  many  of  those  twenty-eight  were 
admitted  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through  conversion  into 
the  Church  Invisible  it  is  impossible  that  man  should 
say.  We  can  only  pray  and  trust  that  each  one 
was  sincere  and  true  in  his  or  her  profession  of 
faith  in  Christ,  and  that  each  one  who  has  been 
admitted  into  membership  in  the  Church  Visible 
is  also  now  a  member  of  the  Church  Invisible.  The 
Bishop  intimated  in  his  address  that  some  of  the 
candidates  who  were  of  mature  years  had  been  lead- 
ing Christian  lives  for  years  before  they  came  to 
him  to  be  admitted  into  full  membership  in  the 
Church,  implying  that  they  had  been  admitted  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  Church  Invisible  before 
they  were  admitted  by  the  Bishop  into  the  Church 
Visible.  Let  this  distinction  between  the  Church 
Visible  and  the  Church  Invisible  be  made  clear. 
Candidates  are  admitted  into  full  membership  and 
privileges  of  the  Church  Visible  by  the  Order  of 


The  Communion  of  Saints  59 

Confirmation  by  the  Bishop  as  head  of  the  Church 
Visible.  (Other  Churches  differ  in  their  form  of 
admission,  and  the  work  is  intrusted  to  officers  other 
than  Bishops.)  Candidates  are  admitted  into  mem- 
bership in  the  Church  Invisible  by  conversion  and 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  head  of  the  Church  Invisible. 
Our  Saviour's  vv^ords  to  Nicodemus,  *'Ye  must  be 
born  again,"  are  written  boldly  over  the  entrance 
to  the  Church  Invisible,  and  without  that  new  birth 
which  is  conversion,  no  man  can  enter.  Member- 
ship in  the  Visible  Church  is  not  a  guarantee  of 
salvation;  nevertheless  the  Visible  Church  is  a 
divinely  appointed  institution  to  point  men  to  the 
way  of  salvation. 

The  Communion  of  the  Saints — it  is  that  com- 
munion which  exists  among  all  those  who  are  mem- 
bers of  the  true  Church  Invisible,  the  bond  of  love 
and  brotherhood  that  exists  among  them  and  the 
bond  of  union  between  them  and  Christ.  And  the 
one  great  common  ground  for  all  is  the  Holy 
Communion,  where  we  meet  as  brothers  and  sisters, 
children  of  the  One  Eternal  God,  where  wealth 
and  social  standing  are  not  counted,  where  none  are 
first  and  none  are  last,  for  all  are  equal;  where 
Christ  has  promised  that  He  will  be  and  meet  with 
us,  and  where  we  may  hold  communion  with  Him 
and  feel  His  presence  and  His  power. 


6o  The  Second  Man 

Nor  can  we  leave  our  subject  without  a  tender 
reference  to  the  memory  of  the  saints  who  once 
were  with  us  and  who  have  now  passed  away  from 
earth.  I  am  not  prepared  to  go  as  far  as  some 
earnest  thinkers  on  this  subject  and  say  that  we  can 
hold  communion  with  our  loved  ones  who  have  gone 
before,  neither  would  I  say,  in  the  face  of  great 
evidence,  that  such  communion  is  impossible.  But 
this  I  do  say  that  we  can  come  here  to  the  Holy 
Communion  and  here  we  can  meet  with  Christ,  and 
we  can  as  it  were  reach  out  our  hand  to  grasp 
His  hand  that  once  was  pierced  on  Calvary's  tree 
in  atonement  for  our  sins,  while  in  His  other  hand 
is  grasped  the  hand  of  a  father,  mother,  brother, 
sister,  or  a  loved  one  who  has  been  called  away. 

Oh!  you  whose  loved  ones  have  fallen  on  the 
field  of  battle,  how  eagerly  you  seek  to  meet  an 
officer  or  a  comrade  or  the  chaplain  in  the  hope 
that  he  will  have  a  message  for  you  from  the  one 
who  has  passed  into  eternity!  Oh!  you  whose 
hearts  are  sore  and  bleeding  by  reason  of  a  separa- 
tion from  the  ones  you  love,  draw  near  with  faith 
and  take  this  holy  sacrament  which  Christ  Him- 
self ordained  as  the  place  where  He  would  come 
to  meet  with  you.  Draw  near  with  faith,  for 
Christ  was  with  your  loved  one  in  the  last  moments 
of  his  life,  yea,  Christ  can  tell  you  all  about  him 


The  Communion  of  Saints  6i 

now  that  he  has  passed  into  eternity,  and  He  has 
a  message  of  comfort  to  give  you  now;  if  you  will 
come  forward  worthily  and  in  faith  to  receive  it  in 
the  Communion  of  the  Saints. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01197  0516 


